MEA synergies, international environmental governance and sustainable development

2.1 Introduction

At the international level, in multilateral environmental negotiations, there is much support, almost uncontested, for synergies among the MEAs at all levels. The request

1 Kerstin Stendahl, Deputy Executive Secretary, Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions Secretariat.

Previously Ministerial Adviser, Ministry of the Environment, Finland; former co-chair of the ad hoc joint working group on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions; e-mail: KStendahl@pic.int. The author would like to thank the editors of the Review, Dr Tuula Honkonen and Prof. Ed Couzens, for their invaluable assistance in the drafting of this paper.

2 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, 20–22 June 2012. The Confer-ence marked the 20th anniversary of the 1992 UN ConferConfer-ence on Environment and Development.

3 The Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development aims to enhance the integration of sustainable development in the activities of all relevant United Nations agencies, programmes and funds, and the international financial institutions, within their mandates. For more information, see <http://www.

uncsd2012.org/isfd.html>.

60

Clustering of MEAs – Lessons Learned, Rio+20 and Beyond

for MEA synergies is a consistent core message from various international environ-mental governance processes.⁴ The strengthening of IEG has featured prominently as part of the negotiations on the institutional framework for sustainable develop-ment. The challenge is to place IEG within the IFSD so that system-wide action within the United Nations (UN) is achieved in a supportive fashion across the three pillars of sustainable development (the economic, social and environmental dimen-sions). Within this context, the most favorable outcome on IEG in general from the Rio+20 Conference, and other such initiatives, would be a firm foundation from which to deliver on IEG reform.

2.2 International environmental governance

International environmental governance encompasses all international environmen-tal instruments, processes, organizations and arrangements within the UN system, including at the regional level. It is not restricted to pursuing reform of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),⁵ but takes a wider approach. The strengthening of IEG should be evolutionary (step-by-step) in nature. A prudent approach (meaning that form follows function, leading to incremental reform) to institutional change is required. There is a general preference among governments for making better use of existing structures.

2.3 IEG within the context of sustainable development

In 2002, at UNEP’s Governing Council in Cartagena⁶ in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 2002,⁷ a number of core mes-sages were formulated on IEG⁸ which, to a large extent, remain valid in respect of the outcomes of the 2012 Rio Conference. It was suggested, for instance, that:

reform of international environmental governance is a process that should lead to the mainstreaming of environmental concerns into development policy, ensure the balanced integration of the pillars of economic growth, social development

4 See, for instance, the paper by Marceil Yeater in the present Review, which discusses the support for syn-ergies amongst the major biodiversity-related MEAs. A number of papers on extant and potential syner-gistic relationships can be found at UNEP/WCMC, ‘Synergies among MEAs - Key Papers’, available at

<http://www.unep-wcmc.org/synergies-among-meas---key-papers_580.html> (visited 25 November 2012).

5 See <http://www.unep.org/>.

6 UNEP, ‘The UNEP Governing Council International Environmental Governance Initiative’, Seventh Special Session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Cartagena, Colombia, 13–15 February 2002, <http://www.unep.org/GC/GCSS-VII/Documents/K0260448.doc> (visited 25 November and 9 December 2012).

7 World Summit on Sustainable Development, <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/>.

8 UNEP, Reports of the Seventh Special Sessio006E of the Governing Council, para. 76, ‘B. Contribution of the United Nations Environment Programme to the World Summit on Sustainable Development’.

available at <http://www.unep.org/GC/GCSS-VII/Reports.htm> (visited 25 November 2012).

61 Kerstin Stendahl and environmental protection and increase the flow of resources, including tech-nical expertise, technology transfers and capacity building.⁹

It was suggested also that some IEG issues go beyond the mandates of environmen-tal ministries alone; and that other branches of government should therefore be in-volved so as to enhance national level coordination and bring environmental consid-erations into the mainstream of economic and social decision-making at all levels.¹⁰ Further, that the design and implementation of environmental policy at all levels requires a clear link to the sustainable development context as well as greater involve-ment and engageinvolve-ment of non-governinvolve-mental organizations (NGOs), civil society and the private sector. This allows such groups or sectors to play a meaningful role in intergovernmental policy-making; and also requires strengthened national frame-works of governance.¹¹

2.4 The science – policy interface

The increasing complexity of environmental degradation requires an enhanced capac-ity for scientific assessment and monitoring and for the provision of early warnings to governments. This requires IEG to be responsive to country needs. An essential complement of international cooperative arrangements is the requirement to strengthen the capacity of developing countries actively to participate in interna-tional environmental policy formulation and implementation. There is a need to emphasize and support capacity-building and technology transfer, and arguably to enhance the role of UNEP in this regard. The international environmental govern-ance process should take into account the needs and constraints of developing coun-tries on the basis of common but differentiated responsibility.¹²

2.5 The role of UNEP

Few would dispute that the effectiveness of IEG generally should be increased by strengthening the main UN environmental body – UNEP.¹³ Strengthening UNEP would thus encompass provisions for a means and measures that would enable it to

9 Ibid.

10 UNEP, ‘GC IEG Initiative’, supra note 6, ‘Appendix: Report of Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Minister on IEG’ at II.8(d), at 25.

11 Ibid. at II.8(f), at 26.

12 Ibid. at II.8(g), at 26. On common but differentiated responsibility generally, see Tuula Kolari, ‘The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, in Tuula Kolari and Ed Couzens (eds), International Environmental Lawmaking and Diplomacy Review 2007, University of Joensuu – UNEP Course Series 7 (University of Joensuu, 2008) 21–54.

13 As recorded by the UNEP Governing Council, Agenda 21 (the global blueprint for sustainable develop-ment, which was agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, 1992) ‘reaffirmed the role of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the prin-cipal body within the United Nations system in the field of the environment but also added that it should take into account the development aspects of environmental questions’. UNEP, ‘GC IEG Initiative’, supra note 6, ‘Appendix: Report of OIG on IEG’ at I.2, at 23.

62

Clustering of MEAs – Lessons Learned, Rio+20 and Beyond

carry out its mandate, give it a stronger role and authority as well as adequate, stable and predictable financing.¹⁴ UNEP’s strategies and programmes of work should be guided by clear goals and be based on the principles of policy integration, broad-based participation, transparency and accountability and its responsibilities being expanded to include multilateral environmental agreements.¹⁵ In this regard a vari-ety of proposals have been considered, including the proposal to upgrade UNEP to a United Nations specialized agency.¹⁶ Also the Global Ministerial Environment Forum¹⁷ – the GMEF – would be placed as the cornerstone of the international in-stitutional structure of international environmental governance.¹⁸ In addition, UN-EP’s headquarters in Nairobi should be strengthened as a centre for international expertise and meetings on the environment.¹⁹

2.6 Synergies

The proliferation of international instruments and institutional arrangements in international environmental law and governance is a good sign. It shows that the international community is engaged and committed to solve environmental prob-lems and that governments also look for tailor-made answers to specific probprob-lems.

However, governments also recognize that the current approach to IEG, while having the benefit of specialization, may weaken policy coherence due to lack of resources, thus lessening the implementation of existing agreements. Through the ‘clustering approach’ to multilateral environmental agreements, governments are trying to re-verse the trend by attempting to adopt a more coordinated and holistic approach to the implementation of MEAs that in one way or another are similar to each other and thus benefit from joint action.